McMahon v. McMahon

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

McMahon v. McMahon

52 A. 17, 203 Pa. 16, 1902 Pa. LEXIS 642

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 19, 1902

DocketAppeal, No. 372

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A. 17 (McMahon v. McMahon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McMahon v. McMahon, 52 A. 17, 203 Pa. 16, 1902 Pa. LEXIS 642 (Pa. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

by Mr. Justice Mitchell,

The testimony of the defendants tended to show that the note was given without any past or present consideration, and either from fear of the payee, their son, or for an executory consideration of his care and assistance to them in the future, or with a view to giving him a preferred claim on their property, after their death, or possibly from a mixture of all these motives.

The case, therefore, was one for the discretion of the court. If at the trial the defense should go to the merits of the whole claim, the verdict of the jury will settle it, while if it should appear that the real objection is not to the note itself but to the present enforcement of it, the judge acting as a chancellor can control both the judgment and the execution according to the equities shown.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion

by Mr. Justice Mitchell,

The testimony of the defendants tended to show that the note was given without any past or present consideration, and either from fear of the payee, their son, or for an executory consideration of his care and assistance to them in the future, or with a view to giving him a preferred claim on their property, after their death, or possibly from a mixture of all these motives.

The case, therefore, was one for the discretion of the court. If at the trial the defense should go to the merits of the whole claim, the verdict of the jury will settle it, while if it should appear that the real objection is not to the note itself but to the present enforcement of it, the judge acting as a chancellor can control both the judgment and the execution according to the equities shown.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A. 17, 203 Pa. 16, 1902 Pa. LEXIS 642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmahon-v-mcmahon-pa-1902.